Inequality Archives

Despite its new rhetoric, the IMF still promotes failed policies

An event titled Income Inequality Matters: How to Ensure Economic Growth Benefits the Many and Not the Few is not exactly what comes to mind when one thinks of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Yet, in April, at the latest Spring Meetings, managing director Christine Lagarde, along with the IMF’s chief economist, discussed the urgency of addressing rising income inequality and the need for redistributive policies. While IMF staff in Washington were expressing their concern with inequality, people in Ecuador, Argentina and Tunisia were taking to the streets to protest against anti-worker austerity policies their governments are implementing as part of the IMF programs.

In the 1980s and 1990s, when a series of debt crises plagued the developing world, the IMF lent money to those countries as part of what it called structural adjustment programs (SAPs). These programs, part of what is now referred to as the ‘Washington consensus’, aggressively promoted an agenda of liberalization, deregulation, and privatization, along with sharp cuts to social spending.

SAPs protected creditors and opened the doors for multinational corporations to do business in these countries, while the brunt cost of the adjustments was borne by people.

As the growth and development that was promised as a result of these programs never materialized, the IMF slowly lost some of its influence. The painful memories of the social costs that resulted from SAPs have made the IMF an extremely unpopular institution.

In recent years, the IMF has made substantial efforts to rebrand itself and create the image of an institution concerned with inclusive growth and social indicators. The IMF’s research department has dedicated a significant amount of time and space to the issue of rising inequality. This included research that showed that the fiscal consolidation and liberalization of capital accounts – policies that are at the core of IMF programs – increase income inequality.

The Fund has also examined the effect of the labor market policies it promotes and their contribution to the decline in the share of income captured by labour.

Yet, while its research department tackled questions on how to pursue both growth and inclusion, the Fund’s loan programs have not incorporated these concerns.

In the aftermath of the financial crisis in 2008, the IMF re-emerged as a major player on the global scene. The IMF stopped using the name SAP, but the structure of IMF loan conditions and the policy demands remained very similar, with the failure of previous programs all but forgotten.

To make matters worse, the IMF continues a trend of underestimating the depth of recessions caused by the austerity policies it promotes, which prolongs economic crises and increases debt burdens as economies shrink.

The IMF’s latest loan agreement with Ecuador has the typical features of a structural adjustment program. It demands massive cuts in government spending, which directly target public sector employees, along with a series of neoliberal institutional reforms.

The program continues to impose failed policies that are shown by the IMF’s own research department to increase inequality and have high social costs.

To go along with the IMF’s new image, the program does include a floor on social spending, along with a modest increase in spending on social assistance for the first year. However, the spending floor, which establishes a minimum amount of the budget to be allocated towards social assistance programs is set at a low level, which is unlikely to keep up with the increased needs that will arise from Ecuador’s recession.

The case of Argentina, which entered an agreement with the IMF in the summer of 2018, has already shown the inadequacy of social spending floors. As the economic crisis has continued to worsen throughout the program, poverty in Argentina has skyrocketed, increasing from 25.7 percent in mid-2017, to 32 percent by the end of 2018, a staggering 6.3 percentage points.

Argentina also serves as an example of the failure of IMF austerity programs, where growth projections had to be adjusted downwards by over 3 percent for a single year only 3 months after the initial agreement was signed

An in-depth study of all IMF loans approved in 2016 and 2017 has shown that 23 out of a total of 26 programs imposed austerity measures. The number of conditions attached to loans also continues to increase. Furthermore, the study has shown the inadequacy of social spending floors, which do not provide enough funding, even for the provision of basic healthcare.

The IMF has changed its rhetoric on inequality and social inclusiveness, but its operations continue to impose the same harmful policies of the past. While some symbolic steps have been taken on how to operationalize research on inequality, they have yet to be incorporated into lending agreements.

If the IMF is truly concerned about growth that benefits ‘the many,’ it needs to stop promoting policies that have time and time again hurt working people.

This article originally appeared in Equal Times.

Removing the Blinders: Trump Voters and Racial Inequality

A friend recently told me that he voted for Donald Trump, despite the candidate’s racist approach, because racism is “something that hasn’t existed [in America] for sooo long.”

We know some groups of voters—e.g. the KKK—deliberately organized and voted not to “make America great again” but to make America white again. While we don’t know how many of this type there are, we know they couldn’t have elected Trump on their own. They had help from people like my college-educated friend, who thinks racism is confined to history books. This tells us a lot about the degree to which voters are misinformed. Millions of people decanted towards a racist candidate even though they don’t consider themselves to be racists. The election made it clear that there are enough people like my friend to get Donald Trump elected.

15064263_10210729624538835_1318057045_o — Illustration: Heske van Doornen

In our last piece we discussed Dean Baker’s book, which shows that many policies and institutions disproportionately benefit the social elite, and in effect, further marginalize the already marginalized and perpetuate inequality. People of color have long been kept down by policies and institutions that favor the hegemonic class. Racism will not be an issue of the past as long as we have a rigged socio-economic system that systematically breaks down communities of people of color, concentrates poverty to their neighborhoods, cripples their educational opportunities, and limits their access to better incomes and wealth accumulation. The numbers below speak to such current racial disparities.

Wealth and income inequality

Figure 1 shows the disparities between selected races, in terms of wealth, income, home equity, and savings for retirement. As can be seen in the figure, in 2013 net worth for white households was almost 13 times larger than that of African-Americans and 10 times higher than that of Hispanics.

Figure 1. Median Household Wealth, Income, Home
Equity, and Retirement Savings by race, for 2013

Source: Authors’ calculations per The Survey of Consumer Finances (2013)

Not only did whites hold more wealth, but whites also receive higher incomes. A black or Hispanic household in the middle of the income distribution is likely to receive only as much as 58 percent as its white counterpart. While the amounts of savings for retirement for average white households are 4 times larger than those for black or Hispanic.

White households not only have larger sums saved for retirement, but also over 54 percent of these households have some kind of savings. Meanwhile the percentage of black or Hispanic households with savings is considerably lower, as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Percentage of households
with savings and home equity, by race for 2013

	Savings	Retirement Savings	Home Equity
White	54	57	70
Black	39	34	38
Hispanic	37	26	38

Source: Authors’ calculations per
The Survey of Consumer Finances (2013)

Table 1 also shows that average white households are more likely to have equity on their homes. While in 2014 homeownership rates for whites households was at least 26 percentage points larger than the other two groups analyzed here, making whites 1.6 times more likely to own a home—the principal source of wealth-building for most Americans.

Educational Attainment

People of color see their access to incomes and wealth building opportunities severely crippled by educational attainment. Figure 2 below offers a breakdown of educational attainment within each race, using household data. It shows, for example, that 77 and 87 percent of all blacks and Hispanics household heads have less than a College degree as their highest level of education, respectively, while 62 percent of white household heads have less than a completed college education. These differences increase for higher levels of education. As the figure shows, only 7 percent of blacks and 5 percent of Hispanics obtain a graduate degree.

Figure 2. Highest Educational Attainment of Household Head Within Each Race

Moreover, a college degree is not a guarantee of financial success in the future, at least not for non-white families. Even if they attend college, the median wealth return to college graduation for Black and Hispanic households is 9 and 8 percent, respectively, of the returns that accrue to white households, as shown in Table 2. Meaning that for every $1 in wealth that accumulates to Black and Hispanic families, white families accrue $11.5 and $13.33, respectively.

Table 2. Median Wealth Return to College Graduation, 2011

	White	Black	Hispanic
Median Returns to College	$55,869	$4,846	$4,191

Source: Demos analysis of Survey of Income
and Program Participation (SIPP), 2011.

Mass incarceration

The rapid increases in incarceration rates in the U.S. beginning in the mid-1970s have disproportionately affected people of color. By 2008, African-Americans and Hispanics were being incarcerated at a rate 6 times greater than whites and they represented 58 percent of all prisoners, even though blacks and Hispanics only comprise around 25 percent of U.S. population. By 2010, 1 out of 3 high school dropout black male between 20 to 39 years old were imprisoned; compared to just 13 percent for whites with similar characteristics.

As an election-relevant impact of the era of mass incarceration, it is estimated that 1 in 13 African Americans of voting age are deprived of their right to vote as a consequence of voting restrictions imposed by twelve states, with the sole objective of disenfranchising individuals after they have completed their sentences; more than 7 percent of black adults are disenfranchised, while the same restrictions apply to 1.8 percent of non-African-Americans.

The result is that it is estimated that 1 in 3 black males born today is likely to spend some time in prison. And even after they serve their time, wages for black ex-inmates tend to grow 21 percent slower than those of white ex-inmates.

Red lining and exclusionary zoning

Exclusionary zoning and red lining are policies that effectively deny affordable housing and other services—e.g. banking, insurance, supermarkets—to certain groups of the population based on their incomes, race, or ethnicity. It has been widely reported how those policies make it difficult for people of color to find homes in good, safe neighborhoods with access to quality education, employment opportunities, and quality healthcare. The impact of these policies is the creation of race and income segregated areas, with poverty and wealth concentrating in different neighborhoods. It is estimated that a black person is over 3 times more likely to reside in neighborhoods with high poverty concentration than a white person, while Hispanics are twice more likely than whites.

A close reminder of how African-Americans suffer this issue is that the President-elect of the U.S. was investigated and eventually sued by the Justice Department for discriminating against potential black tenants in his company’s buildings; what The New York Times called “the color barrier of the Trump real estate empire.”

These are only a few selected facts, but there are many more; these facts are not as evident to everyone, nor do they capture headlines on TV and Facebook like, e.g., police shootings of unarmed African-Americans.

This piece does not address the reasons, causes, and policies that got us to this point. This is nothing close to a history of racism in America and these are by no means the only injustices that people of color suffer in this country. However, after seeing all this, it should be evident that racism is not an issue of the past—certainly not one for the history books. There are still many people today that lived in racially segregated states under the Jim Crow laws. They had to literally fight for their rights to vote, to access the same schools as whites, or just to sit in the front of a bus. We might not have legal Jim Crow-style discrimination anymore, but American institutions covertly retain remnants of the Jim Crow era. Meanwhile the rich and powerful have rigged American socio-economic institutions with a bias towards their class and race, perpetuating an oppressive system that pretty much defines our place in society according to the color of our skin and the class status of the families from which we are born.

Now, my friend, be careful with any “buts” you might want consider as retort. If you are still not convinced that there is a deeply-rooted-institutionalized race problem in America, then go further than this piece, be curious about it, turn to your black and brown friends—ask them about it, and hear what they have to say.

Post co-written by Daniella Medina and Oscar Valdes-Viera
Illustration by Heske van Doornen

Paid Leave and Daycare: Luxuries of the Wealthy

The U.S. trails the rest of the world in benefits available to families. Currently, the only industrialized country that does not guarantee paid maternity leave for new mothers is the United States. While other countries offer generous paid parental leave and some form of childcare subsidies, the U.S. does not. This lack of policies to support working families widens economic inequality and limits opportunities of children not born in wealthy households.

Deficit hawks often use their concern for future generations as a basis to argue in favor of cutting entitlement programs such as Social Security. Instead of talking about cutting entitlements, the story should be about expanding them with programs that will actually help children, such as providing paid family leave for parents and addressing the rising costs of childcare. If our children are so important to deficit hawks, then why do they oppose policies that would actually have a positive impact on their future?

Various studies have pointed out the positive impact of paid parental leave on both the child and family’s health. Some of the known benefits are lower child mortality, lower rates of post-natal depression in mothers, and a greater likelihood that mothers will return to work. Particularly interesting is a study that points to higher educational attainments and incomes for children whose mothers had taken maternity leave.

In the United States, the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) offers 12 weeks of job-protected unpaid leave to eligible employees. To qualify for unpaid leave under the FMLA, an employee needs to have been working for over 12 months for a company that hires at least 50 people. While this might be a start, it leaves about half of the workers uncovered. Even for those who are covered by the FMLA, they must afford giving up their paychecks for those 12 weeks. The act does little to help those who are left out or cannot afford to renounce their paychecks. This adds pressure on people at the lower end of the income distribution that might be pushed below the poverty line if forced to give up their incomes.

California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island are the only three states that offer paid family leave by building onto existing disabilities programs. These states labeled pregnancy as a “temporary disability,” which offered a path to receiving a wage replacement for up to 6 weeks. An extensive study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that introducing the policy had a positive or no noticeable effect on 89 percent of the businesses surveyed. However, these policies are very modest compared to the rest of the world, with countries sometimes offering more than 50 weeks of paid leave.

Despite the lack of a federal mandate, some employers voluntarily provide paid family leave. While prestigious companies boast generous leave policies, they are usually only available to highly skilled and highly paid workers. The BLS estimates that about 13 percent of all workers in the US have access to paid family leave. However, there are very large discrepancies between types of workers. Twenty-five percent of those working in the management, business, and financial sector benefit from paid family leave, compared to only 7 percent of those working in the service industry.

The above figure shows the striking differences in access to paid leave by wage level. Top-earners are more than 4 times likelier than those at the lower end to be offered paid family leave by their employer. The data illustrate how mandating paid leave would help those who need it the most and are least likely to afford to take unpaid leave.

Another issue that disproportionately affects lower-income families is the cost of childcare. The Economic Policy Institute found that minimum wage workers would have to spend most of their income on childcare. Another shocking finding is that in 33 states the cost of infant care exceeds average tuition at a public 4-year university. While conversations about college affordability and the debt some students have to incur to cover the costs are common, the issue of daycare affordability is discussed much less. The quality of daycare affects the future outcomes for children, putting those whose parents cannot afford high-quality childcare at a clear disadvantage.

It is fairly common practice in many other countries for the government to subsidize childcare. The generous leave policies, along with childcare subsidies seem to be working for other countries that are catching up with the US in terms of female labor force participation. Surprisingly enough, at some point in its history, the US had a government funded universal childcare program. During World War II, the Lanham Act provided funds to enable women to participate more actively in the labor market. Despite the positive impact the program had, it was abandoned once the war ended and the men who returned took back their jobs. If such a program was possible then, it is most certainly possible now, when a high percentage of women are in the labor market.

With childcare costs outpacing overall inflation, while wages not at the top of the distribution have been stagnating, the burden of raising children falls disproportionately on families that are not wealthy. Paid leave and affordable daycare would help children grow up to their full potential. By lowering financial strain on the parents and improving outcomes for the children, these policies would also tackle the growing income inequality. Instead of focusing on reducing the deficit, which would actually hurt future generations, the U.S should expand entitlements to children to show it is really concerned with their future.